About this site

Printer-friendly versionPDF version

On Tuesday May 5th, 2015, the Court of Justice of European Union has validated regulations on the unitary patent. This site is left open for archive purpose but isn't updated anymore.


On April 13th 2011, the European Commission has proposed a “regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection”, that has now to be voted by the European Parliament and the Council of European Union.

This regulation is the last step in a series of attempts – that have failed for over sixty years – to set up a common patent valid in all Member States of the European Union (EU).

unitary patent presentation thumbnail
Watch this video for a complete overview.

Despite the mandatory auto-congratulating communication from the Commission, the proposal is quite disappointing with regard to the major challenge posed: designing a patent system that would fulfil expectations, namely to efficiently foster innovation in Europe.

This site is an initiative to bring an expertise to the European Parliament in order to get over these drawbacks by improving the regulation and to actually build a democratic innovation policy in Europe. It provides raw materials and tools to any citizen who wants to take part in this process.

Syndicate content

Last content

European Parliament not fooled by hearing of the patent microcosm

On Tuesday October 11st 2011, the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) of the European Parliament held a hearing on the unitary patent regulation and the associated agreement on a unified patent court. Although people heard on this occasion, who were all closely tied to the “patent microcosm”, have had the opportunity to expose their views on the project, some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have pointed out the major issue at stake: the degree of autonomy the European Union (EU) wants to leave to the European Patent Office (EPO).

Amendments in ITRE committee

All amendments filed by members of the committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) are opened to comment by registered users on this website.

Available amendments:

Our voting recommandations are shown as follows:

  • +++: essential amendment, the regulation would be illegal if not voted.
  • ++: important amendment to be voted.
  • +: amendment that can be voted.
  • -: amendment that should be rejected.
  • --: amendment that is important to be rejected.
  • ---: dangerous amendment that has be rejected.

After the vote of November 23rd, results are shown as follows:

  • Amendment voted
  • Amendment rejected, fallen or withdrawn

Unitary patent and software patents: a case study

The war between Apple & Samsung provides us with the opportunity to show why substantive patent law with exclusion of software patents should be included in the regulation on the unitary patent.

Beware: Europe's 'unitary patent' could mean unlimited software patents

The battles seen in the US over software patents could spread to the UK and the rest of Europe if the unitary patent is allowed to come into force.

This is a verbatim copy of Richard Stallman's orginal article published on guardian.co.uk on Monday 22 August 2011. We've helped the author writing this story.

A presentation about the unitary patent

The following video goes thoroughly through all issues raised by the regulation on the unitary patent, stressing how important it is to carefully drawing a good patent policy, pointing at drawbacks of the Commission's proposal for this regulation and proposing some required amendments in order for the unitary patent to quickly come to reality.

Legal basis of the unitary patent: do not play with fire!

Under close scrutiny, it appears that the legal basis of the regulation on the unitary patent is at best questionable. At worst, such doubts could very well mean that the regulation is simply illegal. In a situation where the enhanced cooperation procedure is already undergoing two appeals before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the future of the unitary patent cannot afford such a strong legal uncertainty. Hopefully, some amendments to the proposed regulation could help the unitary patent to partly overcome this hindrance.

An inside view of the patent microcosm

The blog of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW) is interesting in many respects. For example it was the only place were, during Summer 2010, the opinion of the Advocates General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the incompatibility of the proposed European Patent Court System with European Treaty Law was leaked. Recently, it was also the first place where the "non paper" of the Commission services about proposed solutions for a Unified Patent Litigation System was published. But here we want to focus on a series of posts on this blog, an exchange of views between two prominent members of EPLAW. Beside the opportunity to benefit from the take of of professional legal analysts about the opinion of ECJ on the incompatibility of the envisaged unified patent litigation system with European Union (EU) Treaties, reviewing this series of posts helps to understand what kind of patent system the "patent microcosm" hopes for, and what kind of alternative is the deepest fear of its members. Finally, now that Commission and Council have discussed some options about a unified patent litigation system, we can weight influence of the patent microcosm on EU institutions.

Council meeting of May 30th 2011: some clouds threatening the official blue sky of unitary patent

On Monday May 30th 2011, in a Council meeting, ministers and representatives of Member States have for the first time exchanged their views about the Commission proposals concerning the unitary patent, as well as about Commission non-paper concerning the jurisdiction. Although this meeting was quite boring, with each and every speaker stating more or less the same platitudes, some critics on major drawbacks have emerged from the delegations of France and Luxembourg. But the main achievement of this Council meeting, and the one which has hit the media's attention, was without any doubt the official declaration by Spain and Italy that both countries, which are the only Member States having refused to regulate under the enhanced cooperation regime, have filed an appeal before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) precisely against the Council's decision to launch the enhanced cooperation.

Criticisms of the governance of the European Patent Office

While the Commission's initial proposal for a regulation on the unitary patent gives a major role to the European Patent Office (EPO) in the granting and administration of this unitary patent, the governance of EPO has been highly criticized, included by academics, EPO staff, governmental studies, the European Parliament, or the Commission itself. This page collects evidences that EU should take advantage of the regulation on the unitary patent to address the problem of governance of the European patent system.